INIGO MONTOYA ON THE USE OF THE WORD “MONOPOLY”: One of the leading AGs in the case against Microsoft for monopoly abuse of power looks at whether the same is true of Google’s Android:

To succeed in a Section 2 case, a plaintiff must first establish that the defendant possesses monopoly power in a relevant market. Second, a plaintiff must show that the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained its monopoly power by unlawful means rather than as a consequence of “a superior product, business acumen or historic accident.”…

In a properly defined market, Google does not have monopoly power, much less the large stable market shares enjoyed by Windows…

The advent of Android has dramatically increased consumer choice and created downward pressure on prices. As the D.C. Circuit stressed, there is nothing inherently wrong with bundling software and, to the extent Google has done so, a court is likely to consider it procompetitive not anticompetitive because it promotes interbrand competition, increases product stability, and does not foreclose use of rival applications. Bottom line, Google’s conduct bears little relationship to Microsoft’s in kind or effect.

And I don’t think the case against Microsoft was particularly strong either…